Charles C. W. Cooke's article can be found at National Review, entitled The Fourth Circuit Runs Roughshod Over the Second Amendment. Go read the whole thing because it does provide useful information about the Court and how it goes about its work of undermining our rights. Cooke writes:
As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.If the Second Amendment were taken seriously by the Court system or our elected "leaders," each citizen not prohibited by law would be required to posses an M-16. and a certain amount of ammunition for it, and to be ready to deploy at a moment's notice. Saying that civilians should not posses Weapons of War is to turn the Second Amendment on its head.
Electing Trump was the beginning of fighting back against the Left's hostile take over of this nation. We, as both Christians and as Constitutional Conservatives need to become more militant in defending and asserting our beliefs in the face of the constant threat. The Left will not back down. They are implacable. They are unreasoning and unreasonable. Our only hope is if we defeat them totally
Update: David Codrea has a good point in Fourth Circuit Second Amendment Subversion Highlights Critical Need to Vet Judges over at Oathkeepers.org. We have been sold a mess of pottage many times before. One wonders about Justices such as Souter and Kennedy. Did Republicans knowingly put these traitors on the Court? If so, why should we trust them now?
Update 2: In a post at the libertarian site "Personal Liberty" by Will Grigg, he gets that the Second Amendment protects weapons useful for warfare, but then misses what Scalia was saying in the Heller case. While Scalia said that:“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. … Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia continued. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Scalia made the distinction about the fact that people have a right to weapons "unconnected with service in the militia" because at the time, the nearest Supreme Court case dealing with the subject was the Miller case, where the Court said that to its knowledge, short barreled shotguns had no military use, and therefore denied Miller's argument. Scalia's point was that military usefulness was only ONE reason for the Second Amendment, not the ONLY reason for it.